PALE.2
Content
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 690
G.R. No. 194578. February 13, 2013.*
PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN, petitioner, vs. PRIMA JESUSA B. QUINSAYAS, MA. GEMMA
OQUENDO, DENNIS AYON, NENITA OQUENDO, ESMAEL MANGUDADATU, JOSE
PAVIA, MELINDA QUINTOS DE JESUS, REYNALDO HULOG, REDMOND BATARIO,
MALOU MANGAHAS, DANILO GOZO, GMA NETWORK, INC. through its news editors
Raffy Jimenez and Victor Sollorano, SOPHIA DEDACE, ABS-CBN CORPORATION through the
Head of its News Group, Maria Ressa, CECILIA VICTORIA OREÑA-DRILON, PHILIPPINE
DAILY INQUIRER, INC. represented by its Editor-in-Chief Letty Jimenez Magsanoc, TETCH
TORRES, PHILIPPINE STAR represented by its Editor-in-Chief Isaac Belmonte, and EDU
PUNAY, respondents.
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Contempt; “Criminal Contempt” and “Civil Contempt,”
Distinguished.—The contempt charge filed by petitioner is in the nature of a criminal contempt. In
People v. Godoy, 243 SCRA 64 (1995), this Court made a distinction between criminal and civil
contempt. The Court declared: A criminal contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity
and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of
justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect. On the other hand, civil
contempt consists in failing to do something ordered to be done by a court in a civil action for the
benefit of the opposing party therein and is, therefore, an offense against the party in whose behalf
the violated order is made. A criminal contempt, being directed against the dignity and authority of
the court, is an offense against organized society and, in addition, is also held to be an offense
against public justice which raises an issue between the public and the accused, and the
proceedings to punish it are punitive. On the other hand, the proceedings to punish a civil
contempt are remedial and for the purpose of the preservation of the right of private persons. It has
been held that civil contempt is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, but a power of the court. It
hasfurther been stated that intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt, and that no one can
be punished for a criminal contempt unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit
it. On the contrary, there is authority indicating that since the purpose of civil contempt
proceedings is remedial, the defendant’s intent in committing the contempt is immaterial. Hence,
good faith or the absence of intent to violate the court’s order is not a defense in civil contempt.
Corporation Law; A subsidiary has an independent and separate juridical personality distinct from
that of its parent company and that any suit against the latter does not bind the former and viceversa.—We have ruled that a subsidiary has an independent and separate juridical personality
distinct from that of its parent company and that any suit against the latter does not bind the former
and vice-versa. A corporation is an artificial being invested by law with a personality separate and
distinct from that of other corporations to which it may be connected. Hence, SNN, not ABS-CBN,
should have been made respondent in this case.
Attorneys; Disbarment; Confidentiality Rule; The purpose of the confidentiality rule is not only to
enable the Supreme Court to make its investigations free from any extraneous influence or
interference, but also to protect the personal and professional reputation of attorneys and judges
from the baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive, and irresponsible clients and litigants; it is
also to deter the press from publishing administrative cases or portions thereto without authority.—
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides: Section 18. Confidentiality.—Proceedings
against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court
shall be published like its decisions in other cases. The Court explained the purpose of the rule, as
follows: x x x. The purpose of the rule is not only to enable this Court to make its investigations
free from any extraneous influence or interference, but also to protect the personal and
professional reputation of attorneys and judges from the baseless charges of disgruntled,
Page 1 of 12
vindictive, and irresponsible clients and litigants; it is also to deter the press from publishing
administrative cases or portions thereto without authority. We have ruled that malicious and
unauthorized publication or verbatim reproduction of administrative complaints against lawyers in
newspapers by editors and/or reporters may be actionable. Such premature publication constitutes
a contempt of court, punishable by either a fine or imprisonment or both at the discretion of the
Court.
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Contempt; Privileged Communications; In People v.
Castelo, 114 Phil. 892 (1962), the Court ruled that contempt is akin to libel and that the principle
of privileged communication may be invoked in a contempt proceeding.—In People v. Castelo, 4
SCRA 947 (1962), the Court ruled that contempt is akin to libel and that the principle of privileged
communication may be invoked in a contempt proceeding. The Court ruled: While the present case
involves an incident of contempt the same is akin to a case of libel for both constitute limitations
upon freedom of the press or freedom of expression guaranteed by our Constitution. So what is
considered a privilege in one may likewise be considered in the other. The same safeguard should
be extended to one whether anchored in freedom of the press or freedom of expression. Therefore,
this principle regarding privileged communications can also be invoked in favor of appellant.
Attorneys; Disbarment; As a general rule, disbarment proceedings are confidential in nature until
their final resolution and the final decision of the Supreme Court.—The Court recognizes that
“publications which are privileged for reasons of public policy are protected by the constitutional
guaranty of freedom of speech.” As a general rule, disbarment proceedings are confidential in
nature until their final resolution and the final decision of this Court. In this case, however, the
filing of a disbarment complaint against petitioner is itself a matter of public concern considering
that it arose from the Maguindanao Massacre case. The interest of the public is not on petitioner
himself but primarily on his involvement and participation as defense counsel in the Maguindanao
Massacre case. Indeed, the allegations in the disbarment complaint relate to petitioners supposed
actions involving the Maguindanao Massacre case. The Maguindanao Massacre is a very highprofile case. Of the 57 victims of the massacre, 30 were journalists. It is understandable that any
matter related to the Maguindanao Massacre is considered a matter of public interest and that the
personalities involved, including petitioner, are considered as public figure.
Same; Same; Since petitioner is a public figure or has become a public figure because he is
representing a matter of public concern, and because the event itself that led to the filing of the
disbarment case against petitioner is a matter of public concern, the media has the right to report
the filing of the disbarment case as legitimate news.—Since the disbarment complaint is a matter
of public interest, legitimate media had a right to publish such fact under freedom of the press. The
Court also recognizes that respondent media groups and personalities merely acted on a news lead
they received when they reported the filing of the disbarment complaint. The distribution by Atty.
Quinsayas to the media of the disbarment complaint, by itself, is not sufficient to absolve the
media from responsibility for violating the confidentiality rule. However, since petitioner is a
public figure or has become a public figure because he is representing a matter of public concern,
and because the event itself that led to the filing of the disbarment case against petitioner is a
matter of public concern, the media has the right to report the filing of the disbarment case as
legitimate news. It would have been different if the disbarment case against petitioner was about a
private matter as the media would then be bound to respect the confidentiality provision of
disbarment proceedings under Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Confidentiality Rule; Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court is not a
restriction on the freedom of the press. If there is a legitimate public interest, media is not
prohibited from making a fair, true, and accurate news report of a disbarment complaint. In the
absence of a legitimate public interest in a disbarment complaint, members of the media must
preserve the confidentiality of disbarment proceedings during its pendency.—Section 18, Rule
Page 2 of 12
139-B of the Rules of Court is not a restriction on the freedom of the press. If there is a legitimate
public interest, media is not prohibited from making a fair, true, and accurate news report of a
disbarment complaint. In the absence of a legitimate public interest in a disbarment complaint,
members of the media must preserve the confidentiality of disbarment proceedings during its
pendency. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers must still remain private and confidential until
their final determination. Only the final order of this Court shall be published like its decisions in
other cases.
Same; Same; Same; Contempt; The premature disclosure by publication of the filing and pendency
of disbarment proceedings is a violation of the confidentiality rule.—Atty. Quinsayas is bound by
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court both as a complainant in the disbarment case against
petitioner and as a lawyer. As a lawyer and an officer of the Court, Atty. Quinsayas is familiar with
the confidential nature of disbarment proceedings. However, instead of preserving its
confidentiality, Atty. Quinsayas disseminated copies of the disbarment complaint against petitioner
to members of the media which act constitutes contempt of court. In Relativo v. De Leon, 21
SCRA 95 (1967), the Court ruled that the premature disclosure by publication of the filing and
pendency of disbarment proceedings is a violation of the confidentiality rule. In that case, Atty.
Relativo, the complainant in a disbarment case, caused the publication in newspapers of statements
regarding the filing and pendency of the disbarment proceedings. The Court found him guilty of
contempt.
Same; Same; Same; Indirect Contempt; Penalties; Indirect contempt against a Regional Trial Court
or a court of equivalent or higher rank is punishable by a fine not exceeding P30,000 or
imprisonment not exceeding six months or both.—Indirect contempt against a Regional Trial
Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank is punishable by a fine not exceeding P30,000 or
imprisonment not exceeding six months or both. Atty. Quinsayas acted wrongly in setting aside the
confidentiality rule which every lawyer and member of the legal profession should know. Hence,
we deem it proper to impose on her a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000).
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Contempt.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar for petitioner.
Nena Santos for respondent Esmael Mangudadatu, et al.
Poblador, Bautista & Reyes for respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN),
Cecilia Victoria Oreña-Drilon and Maria A. Ressa.
Ortega, Del Castillo, Bacorro, Odulio, Calma & Carbonell for PDI and Theresa Torres.
Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for respondent Philippine Star and Edu Punay.
Belo, Gozon, Elma, Parel, Asuncion & Lucila for respondents GMA Network, Inc. and Sophia
M. Dedace.
Florante Arceo Bautista for Atty. Prima Jesusa B. Quinsayas, Melinda Quintos De Jesus, et al.
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Page 3 of 12
Before the Court is a petition for Contempt filed by Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun (petitioner)
against Atty. Prima Jesusa B. Quinsayas (Atty. Quinsayas), Ma. Gemma Oquendo (Gemma),
Dennis Ayon (Ayon), Nenita Oquendo (Nenita), Esmael Mangudadatu (Mangudadatu), Jose Pavia
(Pavia), Melinda Quintos De Jesus (De Jesus), Reynaldo Hulog (Hulog), Redmond Batario
(Batario), Malou Mangahas (Mangahas), and Danilo Gozo (Gozo). Atty. Quinsayas and the other
respondents, who are not from the media, are referred to in this case as Atty. Quinsayas, et al.
Petitioner also named as respondents GMA Network, Inc. (GMA Network) through its news
editors Raffy Jimenez and Victor Sollorano, Sophia Dedace (Dedace), ABS-CBN Corporation
(ABS-CBN) through the Head of its News Group Maria Ressa (Ressa), Cecilia Victoria OreñaDrilon (Drilon), Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. (PDI) represented by its Editor-in-Chief Letty
Jimenez Magsanoc, Tetch Torres (Torres), Philippine Star (PhilStar) represented by its Editor-inChief Isaac Belmonte, and Edu Punay (Punay). Respondents Atty. Quinsayas, et al. and respondent
media groups and personalities are collectively referred to in this case as respondents.
The Antecedent Facts
On 23 November 2009, a convoy of seven vehicles carrying the relatives of then Maguindanao
vice-mayor Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu, as well as lawyers and journalists, was on their way to
the Commission on Elections office in Shariff Aguak to file Mangudadatu’s Certificate of
Candidacy when they were accosted by a group of about 100 armed men at a checkpoint in Sitio
Malating, Ampatuan town, some four to ten kilometers from their destination. The group was
taken hostage and brought to a hilly and sparsely-populated part of Sitio Magating, Barangay
Salman, Ampatuan, Maguindanao. The gruesome aftermath of the hostage-taking was later
discovered and shocked the world. The hostages were systematically killed by shooting them at
close range with automatic weapons, and their bodies and vehicles were dumped in mass graves
and covered with the use of a backhoe. These gruesome killings became known as the
Maguindanao Massacre. A total of 57 victims were killed, 30 of them journalists. Subsequently,
criminal cases for Murder were filed and raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 221, and docketed as Criminal Cases No. Q-09-162148-172, Q-09-162216-31, Q-10162652, and Q-10-163766. Petitioner is the counsel for Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr. (Ampatuan, Jr.),
the principal accused in the murder cases.
In November 2010, Atty. Quinsayas, et al. filed a disbarment complaint against petitioner before
this Court, docketed as Bar Matter No. A.C. 8827. The disbarment case is still pending.
Petitioner alleged that on 22 November 2010, GMA News TV internet website posted an article,
written by Dedace, entitled “Mangudadatu, others seek disbarment of Ampatuan lawyer,” a portion
of which reads:
On Monday, Maguindanao Governor Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu and four others filed a 33 page
complaint against lawyer Sigrid Fortun whom they accused of “engaging in every conceivable
chichancery or artifice to unduly delay the proceedings by using and abusing legal remedies
available.”
On even date, Inquirer.net, the website of PDI, also published an article, written by Torres, which
according to petitioner also stated details of the disbarment case, as follows:
“Respondent Atty. Fortun had astutely embarked in an untiring quest to obstruct, impede and
degrade the administration of justice by filing countless causes of action, all in the hope of burying
the principal issue of his client’s participation or guilt in the murder of 57 people that ill-fated day
of November 23, 2009,” the petitioners said.
Page 4 of 12
Petitioner further alleged that on 23 November 2010, PhilStar published an article, written by
Punay, which gave details of the disbarment allegations, thus:
“Attorney Fortun used and abused legal remedies available and allowed under under the rules,
muddled the issues and diverted the attention away from the main subject matter of the cases, read
the complaint.
***** ***** *****
“Respondent Attorney Fortun’s act of misleading the prosecution and trial court is a
dishonest/deceitful conduct violative of Code of Professional Responsibility,” read the complaint.
“In so doing, he diminished the public confidence in the law and the legal profession, rendering
him unfit to be called a member of the Bar.”
Further, petitioner alleged that on 23 November 2010, Channel 23 aired on national television a
program entitled “ANC Presents: Crying for Justice: the Maguindanao Massacre.” Drilon, the
program’s host, asked questions and allowed Atty. Quinsayas to discuss the disbarment case
against petitioner, including its principal points. Petitioner was allegedly singled out and identified
in the program as the lead counsel of the Ampatuan family.
Petitioner alleged that Atty. Quinsayas, et al. actively disseminated the details of the disbarment
complaint against him in violation of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on the confidential nature
of disbarment proceedings. Petitioner further alleged that respondent media groups and
personalities conspired with Atty. Quinsayas, et al. by publishing the confidential materials on
their respective media platforms. Petitioner pointed out that Drilon discussed the disbarment
complaint with Atty. Quinsayas in a television program viewed nationwide.
Petitioner alleged that the public circulation of the disbarment complaint against him exposed this
Court and its investigators to outside influence and public interference. Petitioner alleged that
opinion writers wrote about and commented on the disbarment complaint which opened his
professional and personal reputation to attack. He alleged that the purpose of respondents in
publishing the disbarment complaint was to malign his personal and professional reputation,
considering the following: (1) the bases of the charges were not new but were based on incidents
that supposedly took place in January 2010; (2) it was timed to coincide with the anniversary of
the Maguindanao Massacre to fuel hatred, contempt and scorn for Ampatuan, Jr. and his counsel
and violated the accused’s right to presumption of innocence and due process; (3) it was published
following articles written about petitioner’s advocacy for the rights of an accused and negated the
impact of these articles on the public; and (4) respondents knew that the charges were baseless as
petitioner always opted for speedy trial and protection of the accused’s rights at trial. Petitioner
further alleged that in announcing their “causes of action” in the disbarment case, respondents
were only seeking the approval and sympathy of the public against him and Ampatuan, Jr.
In its Comment, GMA Network alleged that it has no newspaper or any publication where it could
have printed the article. It alleged that it did not broadcast the disbarment complaint on its
television station. GMA Network alleged that the publication had already been done and
completed when Atty. Quinsayas distributed copies of the disbarment complaint and thus, the
members of the media who reported the news and the media groups that published it on their
website, including GMA Network, did not violate the confidentiality rule. GMA Network further
alleged that Dedace, a field reporter for the judiciary, acted in good faith and without malice when
she forwarded the news to the news desk. GMA News also acted in good faith in posting the news
on its website. GMA Network denied that it conspired with the other respondents in publishing the
news. GMA Network alleged that it posted the disbarment complaint, without any unfair, critical,
Page 5 of 12
and untruthful comment, and only after it was “published” by Atty. Quinsayas, et al. who furnished
copies of the disbarment complaint to the media reporters. GMA Network alleged that it had no
intention to malign petitioner’s personal and professional reputation in posting the news about the
disbarment complaint on its website.
In her Comment, Dedace clarified that she is a field news reporter of GMA Network and not a
writer of the GMA News TV website. Her beat includes the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
and the Department of Justice. Dedace alleged that on 22 November 2010, she received an advice
from fellow field reporter Mark Merueñas that the lawyer of Mangudadatu would be filing a
disbarment case against petitioner. She waited at the Supreme Court. At around 5:00 p.m., Atty.
Quinsayas arrived. Atty. Quinsayas gave copies of the petition to news reporters and Dedace
received one. Dedace prepared and sent her news story to GMA Network where it went to the
editor. Dedace alleged that she did not breach the rule on confidentiality of disbarment
proceedings against lawyers when she reported the filing of the disbarment complaint against
petitioner. She alleged that she acted in good faith and without malice in forwarding her news
story to the news desk and that she had no intention to, and could not, influence or interfere in the
proceedings of the disbarment case. She further alleged that she honestly believed that the filing of
the disbarment complaint against petitioner was newsworthy and should be reported as news.
PDI alleged in its Comment that it shares content with the Inquirer.net website through a
syndication but the latter has its own editors and publish materials that are not found on the
broadsheet. It alleged that Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. and Inquirer Interactive, Inc. are two
different corporations, with separate legal personalities, and one may not be held responsible for
the acts of the other.
Torres alleged in her Comment that on 17 November 2010, a private prosecutor told her and
several other reporters that a disbarment case would be filed against petitioner. The disbarment
case was actually filed on 22 November 2010 when Torres received a copy of the complaint. Since
the lead of the story came from a lawyer, Torres did not consider that writing a story about the
filing of the disbarment complaint might amount to contempt of court. Torres alleged that the
writing of the story was an independent act and she did not conspire with any of the other
respondents. Torres maintained that she acted in good faith in writing the news report because the
Maguindanao Massacre was a matter of public concern and the allegations in the disbarment
complaint were in connection with petitioner’s handling of the case. Torres further
asserted that petitioner is a public figure and the public has a legitimate interest in his doings,
affairs and character.
In her Comment, Ressa alleged that she was the former head of ABS-CBN’s News and Current
Affairs Group and the former Managing Director of ANC. However, she was on terminal leave
beginning 30 October 2010 in advance to the expiration of her contract on 3 January 2011. Ressa
alleged that she had no participation in the production and showing of the broadcast on 23
November 2010. Ressa adopts the answer of her co-respondents ABSCBN and Drilon insofar as it
was applicable to her case.
ABS-CBN and Drilon filed a joint Comment. ABS-CBN alleged that ABS-CBN News Channel,
commonly known as ANC, is maintained and operated by Sarimanok Network News (SNN) and
not by ABS-CBN. SNN, which produced the program “ANC Presents: Crying for Justice: the
Maguindanao Massacre,” is a subsidiary of ABS-CBN but it has its own juridical personality
although SNN and ABS-CBN have interlocking directors. ABS-CBN and Drilon alleged that the
presentation and hosting of the program were not malicious as there was no criminal intent to
violate the confidentiality rule in disbarment proceedings. They alleged that the program was a
commemoration of the Maguindanao Massacre and was not a report solely on the disbarment
complaint against petitioner which took only a few minutes of the one-hour program. They alleged
Page 6 of 12
that the program was not a publication intended to embarrass petitioner who was not even
identified as the respondent in the disbarment complaint. Drilon even cautioned against the
revelation of petitioner’s name in the program. ABS-CBN and Drilon further alleged that prior to
the broadcast of the program on 23 November 2010, the filing of the disbarment complaint against
petitioner was already the subject of widespread news and already of public knowledge. They
denied petitioner’s allegation that they conspired with the other respondents in violating the
confidentiality rule in disbarment proceedings. Finally, they alleged that the contempt charge
violates their right to equal protection because there were other reports and publications of the
disbarment complaint but the publishers were not included in the charge. They also assailed the
penalty of imprisonment prayed for by petitioner as too harsh.
In their joint Comment, respondents Mangudadatu, Ayon, Nenita, and Gemma alleged that
petitioner failed to prove that they actively participated in disseminating details of the disbarment
complaint against him. They alleged that while they were the ones who filed the disbarment
complaint against petitioner, it does not follow that they were also the ones who caused the
publication of the complaint. They alleged that petitioner did not provide the name of any
particular person, dates, days or places to show the alleged confederation in the dissemination of
the disbarment complaint.
Respondents De Jesus, Hulog, Batario, and Mangahas, in their capacity as members of the Board
of Trustees of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, Inc. (FFFJ) and Atty. Quinsayas, former
counsel for FFFJ, also filed a joint Comment claiming that the alleged posting and publication of
the articles were not established as a fact. Respondents alleged that petitioner did not submit
certified true copies of the articles and he only offered to submit a digital video disk (DVD) copy
of the televised program where Atty. Quinsayas was allegedly interviewed by Drilon. Respondents
alleged that, assuming the articles were published, petitioner failed to support his allegations that
they actively disseminated the details of the disbarment complaint.
In their joint Comment, PhilStar and Punay alleged that on 22 November 2010, Atty. Quinsayas, et
al. went to this Court to file the disbarment complaint but they were not able to file it on that day.
Atty. Quinsayas, et al. were able to file the disbarment complaint the following day, or on 23
November 2010. PhilStar and Punay alleged that their news article, which was about the plan to
file a disbarment complaint against petitioner, was published on 23 November 2010. It came out
before the disbarment complaint was actually filed. They alleged that the news article on the
disbarment complaint is a qualified privileged communication. They alleged that the article was a
true, fair, and accurate report on the disbarment complaint. The article was straightforward,
truthful, and accurate, without any comments from the author. They alleged that Punay reported
the plan of Mangudadatu, et al. to file the disbarment complaint against petitioner as it involved
public interest and he perceived it to be a newsworthy subject. They further alleged that assuming
the news article is not a privileged communication, it is covered by the protection of the freedom
of expression, speech, and of the press under the Constitution. They also alleged that the case is a
criminal contempt proceeding and intent to commit contempt of court must be shown by proof
beyond reasonable doubt. They further alleged that they did not commit any contemptible act.
They maintained that the news article did not impede, interfere with, or embarrass the
administration of justice. They further claimed that it is improbable, if not impossible, for the
article to influence the outcome of the case or sway this Court in making its decision. The article
also did not violate petitioner’s right to privacy because petitioner is a public figure and the public
has a legitimate interest in his doings, affairs, and character.
Pavia died during the pendency of this case and was no longer included in the Comment filed for
the FFFJ Trustees. Gozo resigned as member of the FFFJ Trustees and was no longer represented
by the FFFJ counsel in filing its comment. Gozo did not file a separate comment.
Page 7 of 12
The Issue
The only issue in this case is whether respondents violated the confidentiality rule in disbarment
proceedings, warranting a finding of guilt for indirect contempt of court.
The Ruling of this Court
First, the contempt charge filed by petitioner is in the nature of a criminal contempt. In People v.
Godoy, this Court made a distinction between criminal and civil contempt. The Court declared:
A criminal contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a
judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the
court into disrepute or disrespect. On the other hand, civil contempt consists in failing to do
something ordered to be done by a court in a civil action for the benefit of the opposing party
therein and is, therefore, an offense against the party in whose behalf the violated order is made.
A criminal contempt, being directed against the dignity and authority of the court, is an offense
against organized society and, in addition, is also held to be an offense against public justice which
raises an issue between the public and the accused, and the proceedings to punish it are punitive.
On the other hand, the proceedings to punish a civil contempt are remedial and for the purpose of
the preservation of the right of private persons. It has been held that civil contempt is neither a
felony nor a misdemeanor, but a power of the court.
It has further been stated that intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt, and that no one
can be punished for a criminal contempt unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to
commit it. On the contrary, there is authority indicating that since the purpose of civil contempt
proceedings is remedial, the defendant’s intent in committing the contempt is immaterial. Hence,
good faith or the absence of intent to violate the court’s order is not a defense in civil contempt.
The records of this case showed that the filing of the disbarment complaint against petitioner had
been published and was the subject of a televised broadcast by respondent media groups and
personalities.
We shall discuss the defenses and arguments raised by respondents.
GMA Network, Inc.
GMA Network’s defense is that it has no newspaper or any publication where the article could be
printed; it did not broadcast the disbarment complaint in its television station; and that the
publication was already completed when Atty. Quinsayas distributed copies of the disbarment
complaint to the media.
GMA Network did not deny that it posted the details of the disbarment complaint on its website. It
merely said that it has no publication where the article could be printed and that the news was not
televised. Online posting, however, is already publication considering that it was done on GMA
Network’s online news website.
Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.
PDI averred that it only shares its contents with Inquirer.net through a syndication. PDI attached a
photocopy of the syndication page stating that “[d]ue to syndication agreements between PDI and
Inquirer.net, some articles published in PDI may not appear in Inquirer.net.”
Page 8 of 12
A visit to the website describes Inquirer.net as “the official news website of the Philippine Daily
Inquirer, the Philippines’ most widely circulated broadsheet, and a member of the Inquirer Group
of Companies.” PDI was not able to fully establish that it has a separate personality from
Inquirer.net.
ABS-CBN Corporation
ABS-CBN alleged that SNN is its subsidiary and although they have interlocking directors, SNN
has its own juridical personality separate from its parent company. ABS-CBN alleged that SNN
controls the line-up of shows of ANC.
We agree with ABS-CBN on this issue. We have ruled that a subsidiary has an independent and
separate juridical personality distinct from that of its parent company and that any suit against the
latter does not bind the former and vice-versa. A corporation is an artificial being invested by law
with a personality separate and distinct from that of other corporations to which it may be
connected. Hence, SNN, not ABS-CBN, should have been made respondent in this case.
Maria Ressa
Respondent Ressa alleged that she was on terminal leave when the program about the
Maguindanao Massacre was aired on ANC and that she had no hand in its production. Ressa’s
defense was supported by a certification from the Human Resource Account Head of ABS-CBN,
stating that Ressa went on terminal leave beginning 30 October 2010. This was not disputed by
petitioner.
Sophia Dedace, Tetch Torres, Cecilia Victoria Oreña-Drilon, and Edu Punay
Basically, the defense of respondents Dedace, Torres, Drilon, and Punay was that the disbarment
complaint was published without any comment, in good faith and without malice; that petitioner is
a public figure; that the Maguindanao Massacre is a matter of public interest; and that there was no
conspiracy on their part in publishing the disbarment complaint. They also argued that the news
reports were part of privileged communication.
In Drilon’s case, she further alleged that the television program was a commemoration of the
Maguindanao Massacre and not solely about the filing of the disbarment case against petitioner.
Even as the disbarment complaint was briefly discussed in her program, petitioner’s name was not
mentioned at all in the program.
Violation of Confidentiality Rule by Respondent Media Groups and Personalities
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 18. Confidentiality.—Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential.
However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases.
The Court explained the purpose of the rule, as follows:
x x x. The purpose of the rule is not only to enable this Court to make its investigations free from
any extraneous influence or interference, but also to protect the personal and professional
reputation of attorneys and judges from the baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive, and
irresponsible clients and litigants; it is also to deter the press from publishing administrative cases
or portions thereto without authority. We have ruled that malicious and unauthorized publication or
Page 9 of 12
verbatim reproduction of administrative complaints against lawyers in newspapers by editors
and/or reporters may be actionable. Such premature publication constitutes a contempt of court,
punishable by either a fine or imprisonment or both at the discretion of the Court. x x x
In People v. Castelo, the Court ruled that contempt is akin to libel and that the principle of
privileged communication may be invoked in a contempt proceeding. The Court ruled:
While the present case involves an incident of contempt the same is akin to a case of libel for both
constitute limitations upon freedom of the press or freedom of expression guaranteed by our
Constitution. So what is considered a privilege in one may likewise be considered in the other. The
same safeguard should be extended to one whether anchored in freedom of the press or freedom of
expression. Therefore, this principle regarding privileged communications can also be invoked in
favor of appellant.
The Court recognizes that “publications which are privileged for reasons of public policy are
protected by the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech.” As a general rule, disbarment
proceedings are confidential in nature until their final resolution and the final decision of this
Court. In this case, however, the filing of a disbarment complaint against petitioner is itself a
matter of public concern considering that it arose from the Maguindanao Massacre case. The
interest of the public is not on petitioner himself but primarily on his involvement and
participation as defense counsel in the Maguindanao Massacre case. Indeed, the allegations in the
disbarment complaint relate to petitioners supposed actions involving the Maguindanao Massacre
case.
The Maguindanao Massacre is a very high-profile case. Of the 57 victims of the massacre, 30 were
journalists. It is understandable that any matter related to the Maguindanao Massacre is considered
a matter of public interest and that the personalities involved, including petitioner, are considered
as public figure. The Court explained it, thus:
But even assuming a person would not qualify as a public figure, it would not necessarily follow
that he could not validly be the subject of a public comment. For he could; for instance, if and
when he would be involved in a public issue. If a matter is a subject of public or general interest, it
cannot suddenly become less so merely because a private individual is involved or because in
some sense the individual did not voluntarily choose to become involved. The public’s primary
interest is in the event; the public focus is on the conduct of the participant and the content, effect
and significance of the conduct, not the participant’s prior anonymity or notoriety. (Boldface in the
original)
Since the disbarment complaint is a matter of public interest, legitimate media had a right to
publish such fact under freedom of the press. The Court also recognizes that respondent media
groups and personalities merely acted on a news lead they received when they reported the filing
of the disbarment complaint.
The distribution by Atty. Quinsayas to the media of the disbarment complaint, by itself, is not
sufficient to absolve the media from responsibility for violating the confidentiality rule. However,
since petitioner is a public figure or has become a public figure because he is representing a matter
of public concern, and because the event itself that led to the filing of the disbarment case against
petitioner is a matter of public concern, the media has the right to report the filing of the
disbarment case as legitimate news. It would have been different if the disbarment case against
petitioner was about a private matter as the media would then be bound to respect the
confidentiality provision of disbarment proceedings under Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of
Court.
Page 10 of 12
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court is not a restriction on the freedom of the press. If
there is a legitimate public interest, media is not prohibited from making a fair, true, and accurate
news report of a disbarment complaint. In the absence of a legitimate public interest in a
disbarment complaint, members of the media must preserve the confidentiality of disbarment
proceedings during its pendency. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers must still remain
private and confidential until their final determination. Only the final order of this Court shall be
published like its decisions in other cases.
Petitioner also failed to substantiate his claim that respondent media groups and personalities acted
in bad faith and that they conspired with one another in their postings and publications of the filing
of a disbarment complaint against him. Respondent media groups and personalities reported the
filing of the disbarment complaint without any comments or remarks but merely as it was—a news
item. Petitioner failed to prove that respondent media groups and personalities acted with
malicious intent. Respondent media groups and personalities made a fair and true news report and
appeared to have acted in good faith in publishing and posting the details of the disbarment
complaint. In the televised broadcast of the commemoration of the Maguindanao Massacre over
ANC, the disbarment case was briefly discussed but petitioner was not named. There was also no
proof that respondent media groups and personalities posted and published the news to influence
this Court on its action on the disbarment case or to deliberately destroy petitioner’s reputation. It
should also be remembered that the filing of the disbarment case against petitioner entered the
public domain without any act on the part of the media. As we will discuss later, the members of
the media were given copies of the disbarment complaint by one of the complainants.
Esmael Mangudadatu, Dennis Ayon,
Nenita and Ma. Gemma Oquendo
Respondents, while admitting that they were some of the complainants in the disbarment
complaint against petitioner, alleged that there was no proof that they were the ones who
disseminated the disbarment complaint. Indeed, petitioner failed to substantiate his allegation that
Mangudadatu, Ayon, Nenita, and Gemma were the ones who caused the publication of the
disbarment complaint against him. There was nothing in the records that would show that
Mangudadatu, Ayon, Nenita, and Gemma distributed or had a hand in the distribution of the
disbarment complaint against petitioner.
Melinda Quintos De Jesus, Reynaldo Hulog,
Redmond Batario, Malou Mangahas, and
Atty. Prima Jesusa B. Quinsayas
Respondents De Jesus, Hulog, Batario, Mangahas, and Atty. Quinsayas alleged that petitioner was
not able to establish the posting and publication of the articles about the disbarment complaint, and
that assuming the posting and publication had been established, petitioner failed to support his
allegation that they actively disseminated the details of the disbarment complaint. They further
alleged that they did not cause the publication of the news articles and thus, they did not violate
the rule on privacy and confidentiality of disbarment proceedings.
Indeed, petitioner failed to prove that, except for Atty. Quinsayas, the other respondents, namely
De Jesus, Hulog, Batario, Mangahas, and even Gozo, who did not file his separate comment, had a
hand in the dissemination and publication of the disbarment complaint against him. It would
appear that only Atty. Quinsayas was responsible for the distribution of copies of the disbarment
complaint. In its Comment, GMA Network stated that the publication “had already been done and
completed when copies of the complaint for disbarment were distributed by one of the disbarment
Page 11 of 12
complainants, Atty. Prima Quinsayas x x x.” Dedace also stated in her Comment that “Atty.
Quinsayas gave copies of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Fortun and she received one[.]”
Atty. Quinsayas is bound by Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court both as a complainant in
the disbarment case against petitioner and as a lawyer. As a lawyer and an officer of the Court,
Atty. Quinsayas is familiar with the confidential nature of disbarment proceedings. However,
instead of preserving its confidentiality, Atty. Quinsayas disseminated copies of the disbarment
complaint against petitioner to members of the media which act constitutes contempt of court. In
Relativo v. De Leon, the Court ruled that the premature disclosure by publication of the filing and
pendency of disbarment proceedings is a violation of the confidentiality rule. In that case, Atty.
Relativo, the complainant in a disbarment case, caused the publication in newspapers of statements
regarding the filing and pendency of the disbarment proceedings. The Court found him guilty of
contempt.
Indirect contempt against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank is
punishable by a fine not exceeding P30,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both.
Atty. Quinsayas acted wrongly in setting aside the confidentiality rule which every lawyer and
member of the legal profession should know. Hence, we deem it proper to impose on her a fine of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000).
WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Prima Jesusa B. Quinsayas GUILTY of indirect contempt for
distributing copies of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun to members
of the media and we order her to pay a FINE of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000).
SO ORDERED.
Brion, Del Castillo, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Atty. Jesusa B. Quinsayas meted with P20,000.00 fine for indirect contempt.
Notes.—It bears stressing that the power to declare a person in contempt of court must be
exercised on the preservative, not the vindictive, principle; and on the corrective, not the
retaliatory, idea of punishment—a judge, as a public servant, should not be so thin-skinned or
sensitive as to feel hurt or offended if a citizen expresses an honest opinion about him which may
not altogether be flattering to him. (Baculi vs. Belen, 586 SCRA 69 [2009])
Disbarment proceedings are sui generis; The purpose of disbarment proceedings is mainly to
determine the fitness of a lawyer to continue acting as an officer of the court and as participant in
the dispensation of justice; Court may initiate the disbarment proceedings motu proprio. (Office of
the Court Administrator vs. Liangco, 662 SCRA 103 [2011])
——o0o——
Page 12 of 12
G.R. No. 194578. February 13, 2013.*
PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN, petitioner, vs. PRIMA JESUSA B. QUINSAYAS, MA. GEMMA
OQUENDO, DENNIS AYON, NENITA OQUENDO, ESMAEL MANGUDADATU, JOSE
PAVIA, MELINDA QUINTOS DE JESUS, REYNALDO HULOG, REDMOND BATARIO,
MALOU MANGAHAS, DANILO GOZO, GMA NETWORK, INC. through its news editors
Raffy Jimenez and Victor Sollorano, SOPHIA DEDACE, ABS-CBN CORPORATION through the
Head of its News Group, Maria Ressa, CECILIA VICTORIA OREÑA-DRILON, PHILIPPINE
DAILY INQUIRER, INC. represented by its Editor-in-Chief Letty Jimenez Magsanoc, TETCH
TORRES, PHILIPPINE STAR represented by its Editor-in-Chief Isaac Belmonte, and EDU
PUNAY, respondents.
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Contempt; “Criminal Contempt” and “Civil Contempt,”
Distinguished.—The contempt charge filed by petitioner is in the nature of a criminal contempt. In
People v. Godoy, 243 SCRA 64 (1995), this Court made a distinction between criminal and civil
contempt. The Court declared: A criminal contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity
and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of
justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect. On the other hand, civil
contempt consists in failing to do something ordered to be done by a court in a civil action for the
benefit of the opposing party therein and is, therefore, an offense against the party in whose behalf
the violated order is made. A criminal contempt, being directed against the dignity and authority of
the court, is an offense against organized society and, in addition, is also held to be an offense
against public justice which raises an issue between the public and the accused, and the
proceedings to punish it are punitive. On the other hand, the proceedings to punish a civil
contempt are remedial and for the purpose of the preservation of the right of private persons. It has
been held that civil contempt is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, but a power of the court. It
hasfurther been stated that intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt, and that no one can
be punished for a criminal contempt unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit
it. On the contrary, there is authority indicating that since the purpose of civil contempt
proceedings is remedial, the defendant’s intent in committing the contempt is immaterial. Hence,
good faith or the absence of intent to violate the court’s order is not a defense in civil contempt.
Corporation Law; A subsidiary has an independent and separate juridical personality distinct from
that of its parent company and that any suit against the latter does not bind the former and viceversa.—We have ruled that a subsidiary has an independent and separate juridical personality
distinct from that of its parent company and that any suit against the latter does not bind the former
and vice-versa. A corporation is an artificial being invested by law with a personality separate and
distinct from that of other corporations to which it may be connected. Hence, SNN, not ABS-CBN,
should have been made respondent in this case.
Attorneys; Disbarment; Confidentiality Rule; The purpose of the confidentiality rule is not only to
enable the Supreme Court to make its investigations free from any extraneous influence or
interference, but also to protect the personal and professional reputation of attorneys and judges
from the baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive, and irresponsible clients and litigants; it is
also to deter the press from publishing administrative cases or portions thereto without authority.—
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides: Section 18. Confidentiality.—Proceedings
against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court
shall be published like its decisions in other cases. The Court explained the purpose of the rule, as
follows: x x x. The purpose of the rule is not only to enable this Court to make its investigations
free from any extraneous influence or interference, but also to protect the personal and
professional reputation of attorneys and judges from the baseless charges of disgruntled,
Page 1 of 12
vindictive, and irresponsible clients and litigants; it is also to deter the press from publishing
administrative cases or portions thereto without authority. We have ruled that malicious and
unauthorized publication or verbatim reproduction of administrative complaints against lawyers in
newspapers by editors and/or reporters may be actionable. Such premature publication constitutes
a contempt of court, punishable by either a fine or imprisonment or both at the discretion of the
Court.
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Contempt; Privileged Communications; In People v.
Castelo, 114 Phil. 892 (1962), the Court ruled that contempt is akin to libel and that the principle
of privileged communication may be invoked in a contempt proceeding.—In People v. Castelo, 4
SCRA 947 (1962), the Court ruled that contempt is akin to libel and that the principle of privileged
communication may be invoked in a contempt proceeding. The Court ruled: While the present case
involves an incident of contempt the same is akin to a case of libel for both constitute limitations
upon freedom of the press or freedom of expression guaranteed by our Constitution. So what is
considered a privilege in one may likewise be considered in the other. The same safeguard should
be extended to one whether anchored in freedom of the press or freedom of expression. Therefore,
this principle regarding privileged communications can also be invoked in favor of appellant.
Attorneys; Disbarment; As a general rule, disbarment proceedings are confidential in nature until
their final resolution and the final decision of the Supreme Court.—The Court recognizes that
“publications which are privileged for reasons of public policy are protected by the constitutional
guaranty of freedom of speech.” As a general rule, disbarment proceedings are confidential in
nature until their final resolution and the final decision of this Court. In this case, however, the
filing of a disbarment complaint against petitioner is itself a matter of public concern considering
that it arose from the Maguindanao Massacre case. The interest of the public is not on petitioner
himself but primarily on his involvement and participation as defense counsel in the Maguindanao
Massacre case. Indeed, the allegations in the disbarment complaint relate to petitioners supposed
actions involving the Maguindanao Massacre case. The Maguindanao Massacre is a very highprofile case. Of the 57 victims of the massacre, 30 were journalists. It is understandable that any
matter related to the Maguindanao Massacre is considered a matter of public interest and that the
personalities involved, including petitioner, are considered as public figure.
Same; Same; Since petitioner is a public figure or has become a public figure because he is
representing a matter of public concern, and because the event itself that led to the filing of the
disbarment case against petitioner is a matter of public concern, the media has the right to report
the filing of the disbarment case as legitimate news.—Since the disbarment complaint is a matter
of public interest, legitimate media had a right to publish such fact under freedom of the press. The
Court also recognizes that respondent media groups and personalities merely acted on a news lead
they received when they reported the filing of the disbarment complaint. The distribution by Atty.
Quinsayas to the media of the disbarment complaint, by itself, is not sufficient to absolve the
media from responsibility for violating the confidentiality rule. However, since petitioner is a
public figure or has become a public figure because he is representing a matter of public concern,
and because the event itself that led to the filing of the disbarment case against petitioner is a
matter of public concern, the media has the right to report the filing of the disbarment case as
legitimate news. It would have been different if the disbarment case against petitioner was about a
private matter as the media would then be bound to respect the confidentiality provision of
disbarment proceedings under Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Confidentiality Rule; Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court is not a
restriction on the freedom of the press. If there is a legitimate public interest, media is not
prohibited from making a fair, true, and accurate news report of a disbarment complaint. In the
absence of a legitimate public interest in a disbarment complaint, members of the media must
preserve the confidentiality of disbarment proceedings during its pendency.—Section 18, Rule
Page 2 of 12
139-B of the Rules of Court is not a restriction on the freedom of the press. If there is a legitimate
public interest, media is not prohibited from making a fair, true, and accurate news report of a
disbarment complaint. In the absence of a legitimate public interest in a disbarment complaint,
members of the media must preserve the confidentiality of disbarment proceedings during its
pendency. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers must still remain private and confidential until
their final determination. Only the final order of this Court shall be published like its decisions in
other cases.
Same; Same; Same; Contempt; The premature disclosure by publication of the filing and pendency
of disbarment proceedings is a violation of the confidentiality rule.—Atty. Quinsayas is bound by
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court both as a complainant in the disbarment case against
petitioner and as a lawyer. As a lawyer and an officer of the Court, Atty. Quinsayas is familiar with
the confidential nature of disbarment proceedings. However, instead of preserving its
confidentiality, Atty. Quinsayas disseminated copies of the disbarment complaint against petitioner
to members of the media which act constitutes contempt of court. In Relativo v. De Leon, 21
SCRA 95 (1967), the Court ruled that the premature disclosure by publication of the filing and
pendency of disbarment proceedings is a violation of the confidentiality rule. In that case, Atty.
Relativo, the complainant in a disbarment case, caused the publication in newspapers of statements
regarding the filing and pendency of the disbarment proceedings. The Court found him guilty of
contempt.
Same; Same; Same; Indirect Contempt; Penalties; Indirect contempt against a Regional Trial Court
or a court of equivalent or higher rank is punishable by a fine not exceeding P30,000 or
imprisonment not exceeding six months or both.—Indirect contempt against a Regional Trial
Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank is punishable by a fine not exceeding P30,000 or
imprisonment not exceeding six months or both. Atty. Quinsayas acted wrongly in setting aside the
confidentiality rule which every lawyer and member of the legal profession should know. Hence,
we deem it proper to impose on her a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000).
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Contempt.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar for petitioner.
Nena Santos for respondent Esmael Mangudadatu, et al.
Poblador, Bautista & Reyes for respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN),
Cecilia Victoria Oreña-Drilon and Maria A. Ressa.
Ortega, Del Castillo, Bacorro, Odulio, Calma & Carbonell for PDI and Theresa Torres.
Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for respondent Philippine Star and Edu Punay.
Belo, Gozon, Elma, Parel, Asuncion & Lucila for respondents GMA Network, Inc. and Sophia
M. Dedace.
Florante Arceo Bautista for Atty. Prima Jesusa B. Quinsayas, Melinda Quintos De Jesus, et al.
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Page 3 of 12
Before the Court is a petition for Contempt filed by Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun (petitioner)
against Atty. Prima Jesusa B. Quinsayas (Atty. Quinsayas), Ma. Gemma Oquendo (Gemma),
Dennis Ayon (Ayon), Nenita Oquendo (Nenita), Esmael Mangudadatu (Mangudadatu), Jose Pavia
(Pavia), Melinda Quintos De Jesus (De Jesus), Reynaldo Hulog (Hulog), Redmond Batario
(Batario), Malou Mangahas (Mangahas), and Danilo Gozo (Gozo). Atty. Quinsayas and the other
respondents, who are not from the media, are referred to in this case as Atty. Quinsayas, et al.
Petitioner also named as respondents GMA Network, Inc. (GMA Network) through its news
editors Raffy Jimenez and Victor Sollorano, Sophia Dedace (Dedace), ABS-CBN Corporation
(ABS-CBN) through the Head of its News Group Maria Ressa (Ressa), Cecilia Victoria OreñaDrilon (Drilon), Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. (PDI) represented by its Editor-in-Chief Letty
Jimenez Magsanoc, Tetch Torres (Torres), Philippine Star (PhilStar) represented by its Editor-inChief Isaac Belmonte, and Edu Punay (Punay). Respondents Atty. Quinsayas, et al. and respondent
media groups and personalities are collectively referred to in this case as respondents.
The Antecedent Facts
On 23 November 2009, a convoy of seven vehicles carrying the relatives of then Maguindanao
vice-mayor Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu, as well as lawyers and journalists, was on their way to
the Commission on Elections office in Shariff Aguak to file Mangudadatu’s Certificate of
Candidacy when they were accosted by a group of about 100 armed men at a checkpoint in Sitio
Malating, Ampatuan town, some four to ten kilometers from their destination. The group was
taken hostage and brought to a hilly and sparsely-populated part of Sitio Magating, Barangay
Salman, Ampatuan, Maguindanao. The gruesome aftermath of the hostage-taking was later
discovered and shocked the world. The hostages were systematically killed by shooting them at
close range with automatic weapons, and their bodies and vehicles were dumped in mass graves
and covered with the use of a backhoe. These gruesome killings became known as the
Maguindanao Massacre. A total of 57 victims were killed, 30 of them journalists. Subsequently,
criminal cases for Murder were filed and raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 221, and docketed as Criminal Cases No. Q-09-162148-172, Q-09-162216-31, Q-10162652, and Q-10-163766. Petitioner is the counsel for Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr. (Ampatuan, Jr.),
the principal accused in the murder cases.
In November 2010, Atty. Quinsayas, et al. filed a disbarment complaint against petitioner before
this Court, docketed as Bar Matter No. A.C. 8827. The disbarment case is still pending.
Petitioner alleged that on 22 November 2010, GMA News TV internet website posted an article,
written by Dedace, entitled “Mangudadatu, others seek disbarment of Ampatuan lawyer,” a portion
of which reads:
On Monday, Maguindanao Governor Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu and four others filed a 33 page
complaint against lawyer Sigrid Fortun whom they accused of “engaging in every conceivable
chichancery or artifice to unduly delay the proceedings by using and abusing legal remedies
available.”
On even date, Inquirer.net, the website of PDI, also published an article, written by Torres, which
according to petitioner also stated details of the disbarment case, as follows:
“Respondent Atty. Fortun had astutely embarked in an untiring quest to obstruct, impede and
degrade the administration of justice by filing countless causes of action, all in the hope of burying
the principal issue of his client’s participation or guilt in the murder of 57 people that ill-fated day
of November 23, 2009,” the petitioners said.
Page 4 of 12
Petitioner further alleged that on 23 November 2010, PhilStar published an article, written by
Punay, which gave details of the disbarment allegations, thus:
“Attorney Fortun used and abused legal remedies available and allowed under under the rules,
muddled the issues and diverted the attention away from the main subject matter of the cases, read
the complaint.
***** ***** *****
“Respondent Attorney Fortun’s act of misleading the prosecution and trial court is a
dishonest/deceitful conduct violative of Code of Professional Responsibility,” read the complaint.
“In so doing, he diminished the public confidence in the law and the legal profession, rendering
him unfit to be called a member of the Bar.”
Further, petitioner alleged that on 23 November 2010, Channel 23 aired on national television a
program entitled “ANC Presents: Crying for Justice: the Maguindanao Massacre.” Drilon, the
program’s host, asked questions and allowed Atty. Quinsayas to discuss the disbarment case
against petitioner, including its principal points. Petitioner was allegedly singled out and identified
in the program as the lead counsel of the Ampatuan family.
Petitioner alleged that Atty. Quinsayas, et al. actively disseminated the details of the disbarment
complaint against him in violation of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on the confidential nature
of disbarment proceedings. Petitioner further alleged that respondent media groups and
personalities conspired with Atty. Quinsayas, et al. by publishing the confidential materials on
their respective media platforms. Petitioner pointed out that Drilon discussed the disbarment
complaint with Atty. Quinsayas in a television program viewed nationwide.
Petitioner alleged that the public circulation of the disbarment complaint against him exposed this
Court and its investigators to outside influence and public interference. Petitioner alleged that
opinion writers wrote about and commented on the disbarment complaint which opened his
professional and personal reputation to attack. He alleged that the purpose of respondents in
publishing the disbarment complaint was to malign his personal and professional reputation,
considering the following: (1) the bases of the charges were not new but were based on incidents
that supposedly took place in January 2010; (2) it was timed to coincide with the anniversary of
the Maguindanao Massacre to fuel hatred, contempt and scorn for Ampatuan, Jr. and his counsel
and violated the accused’s right to presumption of innocence and due process; (3) it was published
following articles written about petitioner’s advocacy for the rights of an accused and negated the
impact of these articles on the public; and (4) respondents knew that the charges were baseless as
petitioner always opted for speedy trial and protection of the accused’s rights at trial. Petitioner
further alleged that in announcing their “causes of action” in the disbarment case, respondents
were only seeking the approval and sympathy of the public against him and Ampatuan, Jr.
In its Comment, GMA Network alleged that it has no newspaper or any publication where it could
have printed the article. It alleged that it did not broadcast the disbarment complaint on its
television station. GMA Network alleged that the publication had already been done and
completed when Atty. Quinsayas distributed copies of the disbarment complaint and thus, the
members of the media who reported the news and the media groups that published it on their
website, including GMA Network, did not violate the confidentiality rule. GMA Network further
alleged that Dedace, a field reporter for the judiciary, acted in good faith and without malice when
she forwarded the news to the news desk. GMA News also acted in good faith in posting the news
on its website. GMA Network denied that it conspired with the other respondents in publishing the
news. GMA Network alleged that it posted the disbarment complaint, without any unfair, critical,
Page 5 of 12
and untruthful comment, and only after it was “published” by Atty. Quinsayas, et al. who furnished
copies of the disbarment complaint to the media reporters. GMA Network alleged that it had no
intention to malign petitioner’s personal and professional reputation in posting the news about the
disbarment complaint on its website.
In her Comment, Dedace clarified that she is a field news reporter of GMA Network and not a
writer of the GMA News TV website. Her beat includes the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
and the Department of Justice. Dedace alleged that on 22 November 2010, she received an advice
from fellow field reporter Mark Merueñas that the lawyer of Mangudadatu would be filing a
disbarment case against petitioner. She waited at the Supreme Court. At around 5:00 p.m., Atty.
Quinsayas arrived. Atty. Quinsayas gave copies of the petition to news reporters and Dedace
received one. Dedace prepared and sent her news story to GMA Network where it went to the
editor. Dedace alleged that she did not breach the rule on confidentiality of disbarment
proceedings against lawyers when she reported the filing of the disbarment complaint against
petitioner. She alleged that she acted in good faith and without malice in forwarding her news
story to the news desk and that she had no intention to, and could not, influence or interfere in the
proceedings of the disbarment case. She further alleged that she honestly believed that the filing of
the disbarment complaint against petitioner was newsworthy and should be reported as news.
PDI alleged in its Comment that it shares content with the Inquirer.net website through a
syndication but the latter has its own editors and publish materials that are not found on the
broadsheet. It alleged that Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. and Inquirer Interactive, Inc. are two
different corporations, with separate legal personalities, and one may not be held responsible for
the acts of the other.
Torres alleged in her Comment that on 17 November 2010, a private prosecutor told her and
several other reporters that a disbarment case would be filed against petitioner. The disbarment
case was actually filed on 22 November 2010 when Torres received a copy of the complaint. Since
the lead of the story came from a lawyer, Torres did not consider that writing a story about the
filing of the disbarment complaint might amount to contempt of court. Torres alleged that the
writing of the story was an independent act and she did not conspire with any of the other
respondents. Torres maintained that she acted in good faith in writing the news report because the
Maguindanao Massacre was a matter of public concern and the allegations in the disbarment
complaint were in connection with petitioner’s handling of the case. Torres further
asserted that petitioner is a public figure and the public has a legitimate interest in his doings,
affairs and character.
In her Comment, Ressa alleged that she was the former head of ABS-CBN’s News and Current
Affairs Group and the former Managing Director of ANC. However, she was on terminal leave
beginning 30 October 2010 in advance to the expiration of her contract on 3 January 2011. Ressa
alleged that she had no participation in the production and showing of the broadcast on 23
November 2010. Ressa adopts the answer of her co-respondents ABSCBN and Drilon insofar as it
was applicable to her case.
ABS-CBN and Drilon filed a joint Comment. ABS-CBN alleged that ABS-CBN News Channel,
commonly known as ANC, is maintained and operated by Sarimanok Network News (SNN) and
not by ABS-CBN. SNN, which produced the program “ANC Presents: Crying for Justice: the
Maguindanao Massacre,” is a subsidiary of ABS-CBN but it has its own juridical personality
although SNN and ABS-CBN have interlocking directors. ABS-CBN and Drilon alleged that the
presentation and hosting of the program were not malicious as there was no criminal intent to
violate the confidentiality rule in disbarment proceedings. They alleged that the program was a
commemoration of the Maguindanao Massacre and was not a report solely on the disbarment
complaint against petitioner which took only a few minutes of the one-hour program. They alleged
Page 6 of 12
that the program was not a publication intended to embarrass petitioner who was not even
identified as the respondent in the disbarment complaint. Drilon even cautioned against the
revelation of petitioner’s name in the program. ABS-CBN and Drilon further alleged that prior to
the broadcast of the program on 23 November 2010, the filing of the disbarment complaint against
petitioner was already the subject of widespread news and already of public knowledge. They
denied petitioner’s allegation that they conspired with the other respondents in violating the
confidentiality rule in disbarment proceedings. Finally, they alleged that the contempt charge
violates their right to equal protection because there were other reports and publications of the
disbarment complaint but the publishers were not included in the charge. They also assailed the
penalty of imprisonment prayed for by petitioner as too harsh.
In their joint Comment, respondents Mangudadatu, Ayon, Nenita, and Gemma alleged that
petitioner failed to prove that they actively participated in disseminating details of the disbarment
complaint against him. They alleged that while they were the ones who filed the disbarment
complaint against petitioner, it does not follow that they were also the ones who caused the
publication of the complaint. They alleged that petitioner did not provide the name of any
particular person, dates, days or places to show the alleged confederation in the dissemination of
the disbarment complaint.
Respondents De Jesus, Hulog, Batario, and Mangahas, in their capacity as members of the Board
of Trustees of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, Inc. (FFFJ) and Atty. Quinsayas, former
counsel for FFFJ, also filed a joint Comment claiming that the alleged posting and publication of
the articles were not established as a fact. Respondents alleged that petitioner did not submit
certified true copies of the articles and he only offered to submit a digital video disk (DVD) copy
of the televised program where Atty. Quinsayas was allegedly interviewed by Drilon. Respondents
alleged that, assuming the articles were published, petitioner failed to support his allegations that
they actively disseminated the details of the disbarment complaint.
In their joint Comment, PhilStar and Punay alleged that on 22 November 2010, Atty. Quinsayas, et
al. went to this Court to file the disbarment complaint but they were not able to file it on that day.
Atty. Quinsayas, et al. were able to file the disbarment complaint the following day, or on 23
November 2010. PhilStar and Punay alleged that their news article, which was about the plan to
file a disbarment complaint against petitioner, was published on 23 November 2010. It came out
before the disbarment complaint was actually filed. They alleged that the news article on the
disbarment complaint is a qualified privileged communication. They alleged that the article was a
true, fair, and accurate report on the disbarment complaint. The article was straightforward,
truthful, and accurate, without any comments from the author. They alleged that Punay reported
the plan of Mangudadatu, et al. to file the disbarment complaint against petitioner as it involved
public interest and he perceived it to be a newsworthy subject. They further alleged that assuming
the news article is not a privileged communication, it is covered by the protection of the freedom
of expression, speech, and of the press under the Constitution. They also alleged that the case is a
criminal contempt proceeding and intent to commit contempt of court must be shown by proof
beyond reasonable doubt. They further alleged that they did not commit any contemptible act.
They maintained that the news article did not impede, interfere with, or embarrass the
administration of justice. They further claimed that it is improbable, if not impossible, for the
article to influence the outcome of the case or sway this Court in making its decision. The article
also did not violate petitioner’s right to privacy because petitioner is a public figure and the public
has a legitimate interest in his doings, affairs, and character.
Pavia died during the pendency of this case and was no longer included in the Comment filed for
the FFFJ Trustees. Gozo resigned as member of the FFFJ Trustees and was no longer represented
by the FFFJ counsel in filing its comment. Gozo did not file a separate comment.
Page 7 of 12
The Issue
The only issue in this case is whether respondents violated the confidentiality rule in disbarment
proceedings, warranting a finding of guilt for indirect contempt of court.
The Ruling of this Court
First, the contempt charge filed by petitioner is in the nature of a criminal contempt. In People v.
Godoy, this Court made a distinction between criminal and civil contempt. The Court declared:
A criminal contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a
judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the
court into disrepute or disrespect. On the other hand, civil contempt consists in failing to do
something ordered to be done by a court in a civil action for the benefit of the opposing party
therein and is, therefore, an offense against the party in whose behalf the violated order is made.
A criminal contempt, being directed against the dignity and authority of the court, is an offense
against organized society and, in addition, is also held to be an offense against public justice which
raises an issue between the public and the accused, and the proceedings to punish it are punitive.
On the other hand, the proceedings to punish a civil contempt are remedial and for the purpose of
the preservation of the right of private persons. It has been held that civil contempt is neither a
felony nor a misdemeanor, but a power of the court.
It has further been stated that intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt, and that no one
can be punished for a criminal contempt unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to
commit it. On the contrary, there is authority indicating that since the purpose of civil contempt
proceedings is remedial, the defendant’s intent in committing the contempt is immaterial. Hence,
good faith or the absence of intent to violate the court’s order is not a defense in civil contempt.
The records of this case showed that the filing of the disbarment complaint against petitioner had
been published and was the subject of a televised broadcast by respondent media groups and
personalities.
We shall discuss the defenses and arguments raised by respondents.
GMA Network, Inc.
GMA Network’s defense is that it has no newspaper or any publication where the article could be
printed; it did not broadcast the disbarment complaint in its television station; and that the
publication was already completed when Atty. Quinsayas distributed copies of the disbarment
complaint to the media.
GMA Network did not deny that it posted the details of the disbarment complaint on its website. It
merely said that it has no publication where the article could be printed and that the news was not
televised. Online posting, however, is already publication considering that it was done on GMA
Network’s online news website.
Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.
PDI averred that it only shares its contents with Inquirer.net through a syndication. PDI attached a
photocopy of the syndication page stating that “[d]ue to syndication agreements between PDI and
Inquirer.net, some articles published in PDI may not appear in Inquirer.net.”
Page 8 of 12
A visit to the website describes Inquirer.net as “the official news website of the Philippine Daily
Inquirer, the Philippines’ most widely circulated broadsheet, and a member of the Inquirer Group
of Companies.” PDI was not able to fully establish that it has a separate personality from
Inquirer.net.
ABS-CBN Corporation
ABS-CBN alleged that SNN is its subsidiary and although they have interlocking directors, SNN
has its own juridical personality separate from its parent company. ABS-CBN alleged that SNN
controls the line-up of shows of ANC.
We agree with ABS-CBN on this issue. We have ruled that a subsidiary has an independent and
separate juridical personality distinct from that of its parent company and that any suit against the
latter does not bind the former and vice-versa. A corporation is an artificial being invested by law
with a personality separate and distinct from that of other corporations to which it may be
connected. Hence, SNN, not ABS-CBN, should have been made respondent in this case.
Maria Ressa
Respondent Ressa alleged that she was on terminal leave when the program about the
Maguindanao Massacre was aired on ANC and that she had no hand in its production. Ressa’s
defense was supported by a certification from the Human Resource Account Head of ABS-CBN,
stating that Ressa went on terminal leave beginning 30 October 2010. This was not disputed by
petitioner.
Sophia Dedace, Tetch Torres, Cecilia Victoria Oreña-Drilon, and Edu Punay
Basically, the defense of respondents Dedace, Torres, Drilon, and Punay was that the disbarment
complaint was published without any comment, in good faith and without malice; that petitioner is
a public figure; that the Maguindanao Massacre is a matter of public interest; and that there was no
conspiracy on their part in publishing the disbarment complaint. They also argued that the news
reports were part of privileged communication.
In Drilon’s case, she further alleged that the television program was a commemoration of the
Maguindanao Massacre and not solely about the filing of the disbarment case against petitioner.
Even as the disbarment complaint was briefly discussed in her program, petitioner’s name was not
mentioned at all in the program.
Violation of Confidentiality Rule by Respondent Media Groups and Personalities
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 18. Confidentiality.—Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential.
However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases.
The Court explained the purpose of the rule, as follows:
x x x. The purpose of the rule is not only to enable this Court to make its investigations free from
any extraneous influence or interference, but also to protect the personal and professional
reputation of attorneys and judges from the baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive, and
irresponsible clients and litigants; it is also to deter the press from publishing administrative cases
or portions thereto without authority. We have ruled that malicious and unauthorized publication or
Page 9 of 12
verbatim reproduction of administrative complaints against lawyers in newspapers by editors
and/or reporters may be actionable. Such premature publication constitutes a contempt of court,
punishable by either a fine or imprisonment or both at the discretion of the Court. x x x
In People v. Castelo, the Court ruled that contempt is akin to libel and that the principle of
privileged communication may be invoked in a contempt proceeding. The Court ruled:
While the present case involves an incident of contempt the same is akin to a case of libel for both
constitute limitations upon freedom of the press or freedom of expression guaranteed by our
Constitution. So what is considered a privilege in one may likewise be considered in the other. The
same safeguard should be extended to one whether anchored in freedom of the press or freedom of
expression. Therefore, this principle regarding privileged communications can also be invoked in
favor of appellant.
The Court recognizes that “publications which are privileged for reasons of public policy are
protected by the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech.” As a general rule, disbarment
proceedings are confidential in nature until their final resolution and the final decision of this
Court. In this case, however, the filing of a disbarment complaint against petitioner is itself a
matter of public concern considering that it arose from the Maguindanao Massacre case. The
interest of the public is not on petitioner himself but primarily on his involvement and
participation as defense counsel in the Maguindanao Massacre case. Indeed, the allegations in the
disbarment complaint relate to petitioners supposed actions involving the Maguindanao Massacre
case.
The Maguindanao Massacre is a very high-profile case. Of the 57 victims of the massacre, 30 were
journalists. It is understandable that any matter related to the Maguindanao Massacre is considered
a matter of public interest and that the personalities involved, including petitioner, are considered
as public figure. The Court explained it, thus:
But even assuming a person would not qualify as a public figure, it would not necessarily follow
that he could not validly be the subject of a public comment. For he could; for instance, if and
when he would be involved in a public issue. If a matter is a subject of public or general interest, it
cannot suddenly become less so merely because a private individual is involved or because in
some sense the individual did not voluntarily choose to become involved. The public’s primary
interest is in the event; the public focus is on the conduct of the participant and the content, effect
and significance of the conduct, not the participant’s prior anonymity or notoriety. (Boldface in the
original)
Since the disbarment complaint is a matter of public interest, legitimate media had a right to
publish such fact under freedom of the press. The Court also recognizes that respondent media
groups and personalities merely acted on a news lead they received when they reported the filing
of the disbarment complaint.
The distribution by Atty. Quinsayas to the media of the disbarment complaint, by itself, is not
sufficient to absolve the media from responsibility for violating the confidentiality rule. However,
since petitioner is a public figure or has become a public figure because he is representing a matter
of public concern, and because the event itself that led to the filing of the disbarment case against
petitioner is a matter of public concern, the media has the right to report the filing of the
disbarment case as legitimate news. It would have been different if the disbarment case against
petitioner was about a private matter as the media would then be bound to respect the
confidentiality provision of disbarment proceedings under Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of
Court.
Page 10 of 12
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court is not a restriction on the freedom of the press. If
there is a legitimate public interest, media is not prohibited from making a fair, true, and accurate
news report of a disbarment complaint. In the absence of a legitimate public interest in a
disbarment complaint, members of the media must preserve the confidentiality of disbarment
proceedings during its pendency. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers must still remain
private and confidential until their final determination. Only the final order of this Court shall be
published like its decisions in other cases.
Petitioner also failed to substantiate his claim that respondent media groups and personalities acted
in bad faith and that they conspired with one another in their postings and publications of the filing
of a disbarment complaint against him. Respondent media groups and personalities reported the
filing of the disbarment complaint without any comments or remarks but merely as it was—a news
item. Petitioner failed to prove that respondent media groups and personalities acted with
malicious intent. Respondent media groups and personalities made a fair and true news report and
appeared to have acted in good faith in publishing and posting the details of the disbarment
complaint. In the televised broadcast of the commemoration of the Maguindanao Massacre over
ANC, the disbarment case was briefly discussed but petitioner was not named. There was also no
proof that respondent media groups and personalities posted and published the news to influence
this Court on its action on the disbarment case or to deliberately destroy petitioner’s reputation. It
should also be remembered that the filing of the disbarment case against petitioner entered the
public domain without any act on the part of the media. As we will discuss later, the members of
the media were given copies of the disbarment complaint by one of the complainants.
Esmael Mangudadatu, Dennis Ayon,
Nenita and Ma. Gemma Oquendo
Respondents, while admitting that they were some of the complainants in the disbarment
complaint against petitioner, alleged that there was no proof that they were the ones who
disseminated the disbarment complaint. Indeed, petitioner failed to substantiate his allegation that
Mangudadatu, Ayon, Nenita, and Gemma were the ones who caused the publication of the
disbarment complaint against him. There was nothing in the records that would show that
Mangudadatu, Ayon, Nenita, and Gemma distributed or had a hand in the distribution of the
disbarment complaint against petitioner.
Melinda Quintos De Jesus, Reynaldo Hulog,
Redmond Batario, Malou Mangahas, and
Atty. Prima Jesusa B. Quinsayas
Respondents De Jesus, Hulog, Batario, Mangahas, and Atty. Quinsayas alleged that petitioner was
not able to establish the posting and publication of the articles about the disbarment complaint, and
that assuming the posting and publication had been established, petitioner failed to support his
allegation that they actively disseminated the details of the disbarment complaint. They further
alleged that they did not cause the publication of the news articles and thus, they did not violate
the rule on privacy and confidentiality of disbarment proceedings.
Indeed, petitioner failed to prove that, except for Atty. Quinsayas, the other respondents, namely
De Jesus, Hulog, Batario, Mangahas, and even Gozo, who did not file his separate comment, had a
hand in the dissemination and publication of the disbarment complaint against him. It would
appear that only Atty. Quinsayas was responsible for the distribution of copies of the disbarment
complaint. In its Comment, GMA Network stated that the publication “had already been done and
completed when copies of the complaint for disbarment were distributed by one of the disbarment
Page 11 of 12
complainants, Atty. Prima Quinsayas x x x.” Dedace also stated in her Comment that “Atty.
Quinsayas gave copies of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Fortun and she received one[.]”
Atty. Quinsayas is bound by Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court both as a complainant in
the disbarment case against petitioner and as a lawyer. As a lawyer and an officer of the Court,
Atty. Quinsayas is familiar with the confidential nature of disbarment proceedings. However,
instead of preserving its confidentiality, Atty. Quinsayas disseminated copies of the disbarment
complaint against petitioner to members of the media which act constitutes contempt of court. In
Relativo v. De Leon, the Court ruled that the premature disclosure by publication of the filing and
pendency of disbarment proceedings is a violation of the confidentiality rule. In that case, Atty.
Relativo, the complainant in a disbarment case, caused the publication in newspapers of statements
regarding the filing and pendency of the disbarment proceedings. The Court found him guilty of
contempt.
Indirect contempt against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank is
punishable by a fine not exceeding P30,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both.
Atty. Quinsayas acted wrongly in setting aside the confidentiality rule which every lawyer and
member of the legal profession should know. Hence, we deem it proper to impose on her a fine of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000).
WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Prima Jesusa B. Quinsayas GUILTY of indirect contempt for
distributing copies of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun to members
of the media and we order her to pay a FINE of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000).
SO ORDERED.
Brion, Del Castillo, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Atty. Jesusa B. Quinsayas meted with P20,000.00 fine for indirect contempt.
Notes.—It bears stressing that the power to declare a person in contempt of court must be
exercised on the preservative, not the vindictive, principle; and on the corrective, not the
retaliatory, idea of punishment—a judge, as a public servant, should not be so thin-skinned or
sensitive as to feel hurt or offended if a citizen expresses an honest opinion about him which may
not altogether be flattering to him. (Baculi vs. Belen, 586 SCRA 69 [2009])
Disbarment proceedings are sui generis; The purpose of disbarment proceedings is mainly to
determine the fitness of a lawyer to continue acting as an officer of the court and as participant in
the dispensation of justice; Court may initiate the disbarment proceedings motu proprio. (Office of
the Court Administrator vs. Liangco, 662 SCRA 103 [2011])
——o0o——
Page 12 of 12
Sponsor Documents
Recommended
No recommend documents